It just doesn’t seem sustainable. It’s one thing to sacrifice bodies and run out the clock on your homeland like Russia did in WW2, it would seem quite another to try to do it on the offensive. I assume Putin thinks the west will eventually get impatient and give up.
Russia has around 145 million people and Ukraine has around 45 million when I looked. So it more like 3.5 to 1. Right now, for all the talk of Russian dead, Ukraine is taking a lot of hits too. Whichever of these numbers you take, Russia is losing a lower percentage of their population than Ukraine is, which is why I continually harp on the idea of this being a war of attrition. Ukraine is winning in sheer number, but not proportional ones. Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia But I did see this tonight. Ukraine Successfully Eliminates 1,060 Russian Soldiers In 24 Hours; 20 Armored Vehicles Destroyed If may be as Russia loses more hardware and good fighters that the ratio swings further in Ukraine’s favor.
We can debate casualty rates all day long. I tend to believe Western accounts although I suspect they are inflated regarding Russian KIAs. What is undeniable is the rate of Russian progress. If the Russians are in full scale offensive mode, it's clear the offensive is off to a disastrous start. Progress may be measured in yards or meters, not kilometers and not miles. WW1 type movement. My concern is - Is the Ukranian defense a "Hard crust" of a few layers? If pierced will Russian armor run wild? Or is it layer after layer of defensive lines, in depth? Zelenski did caution that a Russian breakthrough at Bakmut could lead to rapid exploitation by the enemy. That is obviously a concern. Is Ukraine able to call up sufficient replacements and reserves? Is NATO hardware showing up in sufficient quantities? All the info. I have gleaned so far suggests that any Ukranian opportunities for offensive operations will not be ready until May or June.
*sighs* I’ve posted numerous analyses explaining why, in this day and age, no army in the world is advised to throw human waves against a large, heavily-armed and well-fortified adversary. Add to that, the reason why Russia is holding the large majority of its forces back MAY be its anticipation that NATO and the US may send troops into theatre.
REMINDER: in Mosul 2017 it took 108,000 coalition troops and heavy US aerial bombardment NINE MONTHS and four days, to pacify as few as 5,000 IS rebels, and at the cost of 40,000 civilian lives. Now reverse the calculus. Until only recently Russia, even with its allies, has been outnumbered 3:1 by heavily armed and highly fortified Ukrainian troops.
The USA was never, even remotely, in a position to "win" hearts and minds in either Iraq or Afghanistan. How many decades were US forces expected to "police" those two countries? The people (The U.S.) put in power wound up resenting the hell out of us. Military occupation by foreign powers do not usually set well with the locals. While I firmly believe the US military did "The best they Could" lack of political preparation, corruption, stated goals and ignorance of cultural and religous values sank U.S. efforts. While it is certainly jusified to criticise Bidens disasterous withdrawal from Afghanistan, both of those campaigns were undertaken by Republican Administrations with poor political leadership, a belief in non existant weapons of mass destruction, and a complete misunderstanding of "Real-Politics" of the region. President Bush's premature "Mission Accomplished" comments clearly revealing the ineptitude of that administration. One must bleakly ask the question, from the American perspective, was it worth it? I'm not talking about the initial military response to 9-11, no I'm talking about what came after. I don't think anyone was concerned with the U.S. military's abilities to win in combat. it was always about the peace and what came after, something the Bush Administration clearly was unprepared for.
Actually I believe, in the end, it will be how the U.S. voter views it. If a Republican Administration comes to power in 2 years will they support Ukraine? The GOP is clearly the party that seems to be less enthusiastic about supporting Ukraine. Putin may just say - carry on, we will deal with stalemate for 2 years until a more sympathetic American regime comes to power. IMO, if the GOP wavers, then yes, I see Putin winning in the long run. It's pretty disconcerting, from my perspective, to see the grand old party, being over-run by totalitarian sympathizers. That attitude will set U.S. foreign policy back ......oh about 78 years, with alot of blood, sweat and tears flushed down the crapper.
We were engaged for 20 years, and both those wars (but especially Iraq, because it was a fraud perpetuated by the Bush admin) were failures. Not military failures, political failure that harmed U.S. standing and diminished our national willingness to defend freedom. Fighting a war on fraud pretenses has a tendency to do that. It changed minds about the U.S. “policing the world”, you never used to hear right wingers question the purpose of our military like that before, have to go back to leftists opinions on Vietnam to find that type of mission doubt. Now it’s a populist talking point on the right. One has to ask if that resolve would be lacking in an alt history where Iraq invasion were off the table. Even the populists might not comprehend their own present way of thinking was altered by these events. I don’t think Russia is necessarily looking at the Afghanistan failure specifically, but they certainly know the U.S. lacks the political will to put “boots on the ground” in another ground war. I think Russia has been using that thinking for all their incursions into Eastern Europe as well as the atrocities committed to support the Assad regime in Syria. He knew that ultimately, despite some minor posturing by Obama, there was and is no red line that would cause the U.S. to enter any of those directly, short of incursion into NATO territory. That was surely the thinking here too. The miscalculation on Putin’s part was that it would be a quick victory even with some hardware donated from the west. Now it is more of a war of attrition, not just between Ukraine soldiers and Russian mercenaries, but how many western politicians and media personalities can he buy off or influence vs. how long he can sustain his own efforts.
Or maybe the problem is that there has been insufficient oversight by the government when the maintenance of certain infrastructure like railroad tracks is the responsibility of private corporations whose primary goal is increasing profits.
Absolutely. Putin is betting that ultimately the West will grow tired of spending money on arms for Ukraine and he is willing to sacrifice as many of his own citizens as necessary until that time comes.
Reportedly, Ukraine is marshaling up to 50,000 troops to stage a counter-attack in Bakhmut. If so, this would be a dream scenario for Russian generals. Draw the better part of Ukraine’s army into the open, using Wagner as bait. This would also localize destruction in Ukraine and also spare civilian lives. It would also rule out a grand offensive, by Ukraine, on Crimea.
Found the numbers interesting. What the video does not indicate (unless the tanks / aircraft on top are represenative of model type) is what models are in what numbers. I would rather have 50 advanced M-1 A2's as compared to 500 T - 62's. (and so forth). Neverthless interesting information. Thanks
